Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output details (up to 8 products, relevance scores, endpoints) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is mostly concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the 'When to use' line 'call capability_search when the user's request matches this capability' is redundant and could be trimmed without loss, slightly reducing efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides enough for a read-only search tool: purpose, output summary, and explicit usage boundaries against zambo_universal. The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety. The 'safer read-only route' mention is vague but not critical. Overall, the tool is adequately specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself richly documents 'q' and its aliases with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('all 100+ Zambo Stack tools'), clearly distinguishing its discovery role. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'zambo_universal' by advising to use it 'when you know exactly which product you want.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a specific comparison to 'zambo_universal' and an exclusion for 'safer read-only route.' However, the phrase 'when the user's request matches this capability' is somewhat tautological, and the alternative tools beyond zambo_universal are not named, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.